Pharmacist liability.

Abstract

The various legal theories under which pharmacists may be found liable are reviewed. The pivotal element in determining pharmacist malpractice is the study that was owed to the patient. A pharmacist's principal duties to the patient are to dispense the correct drug and to label it correctly; failure to fulfill either of these responsibilities had led to successful claims of malpractice. There have been only a few cases in which the court ruled that the pharmacist had a duty to warn the patient about a potential adverse drug effect or interaction. However, as the role of the pharmacist expands, more courts may begin to find pharmacists liable for failing to warn the patient under specific circumstances. Pharmacists have a heightened duty to warn the patient about potential problems associated with nonprescription drugs that they recommend. A pharmacist may escape liability if there was a lack of proximate cause. Similarly, the defenses of contributory or comparative negligence and voluntary assumption of risk are based on some conduct by the plaintiff that negates or modifies the pharmacist's negligence. Statutes of limitation can also exclude liability. Courts have not found pharmacists liable under strict liability theories. A breach of warranty claim has rarely been successful. Pharmacists could be found liable for negligent selection of therapeutic alternatives but probably not for injuries allegedly caused by correctly selected equivalent agents. Although no cases have been reported, pharmacists could be subjected to negligence-based liability for nondistributive pharmaceutical services. As pharmacists assume more responsibilities, pharmacist malpractice law will expand.